Towards a restrictive theory of (remnant) movement!

Abstract

A restrictive theory of syntax needs both a restrictive theory of structures and a restrictive theory of operations.Much recent effort has gone into narrowing the class of allowable structures and a lot has been learned. This paper proposes that operations are linearly ordered on an essentially constituent by constituent basis. A universal constraint on the ordering of operations in language is proposed whose function is to fix the order in which operations apply. This constraint is deployed using a generalized prohibition against improper movement. The proposal captures some but not all effects of what has traditionally been called the freezing principle. It is argued that empirically exactly the right cut is made. It is further argued that the proposal rules out an entire class of remnant movement derivations, including the analysis of cross-serial dependencies in Nilsen (2003) and the analysis of order-preservation in Koopman and Szabolcsi (2000).

The fundamental left–right asymmetry in the Germanic verb cluster

“…We also find case adjacency to the right of the verb but not on its left (Haider 2005;Janke and Neeleman 2012), resulting in restricted interactions between argument and adjunct placement. Further, Abels (2007) claims that the mirror image of the Swiss German and Dutch cross-serial pattern is never found, which again suggests an asymmetry in the interactions between orders. A systematic study of these questions and a general theoretical analysis do not exist yet.…”

“…To solve the problems pointed out in Sect. 2.2 without losing the account of the fundamental leftright asymmetry, such theories can allow an additional type of movement: movement that preserves the relative order of elements within the moving class (Abels 2007 From the base structure in (34a), (34b-e) can all be derived without disturbing the base order of the adverbs, but (34f) cannot. In other words, the hierarchical order of adverbs in (34b-e) after movement is always the same as before movement: Adv 1 c-commands Adv 2 .…”

Remnant movement in local derivational grammar

“…Thus, De Kuthy & Meurers (2001), Fanselow (2002), Hale & Legendre (2004) and Thoms & Walkden (2013), among others, argue against a remnant movement analysis of examples like (4). In contrast, Grewendorf (2003; and Abels (2008), while basically assuming a remnant movement analysis of these kinds of data, adopt some generalizations about α-over-β configurations that are not co-extensive with those I adopt in what follows (involving, e.g., systematic exceptions from freezing and anti-freezing). For reasons of space and coherence, and since the main focus of the present paper is on a reconstruction of an existing theoretical analysis in a slightly different (i.e., more local) framework rather than on justifying this analysis, I will not discuss these alternative proposals in what follows.…”

Agreement and reconstruction correlate in Swedish

“…The ban on Improper Movement is such that if an element has moved into an A -position, it cannot subsequently move into an A-position. Williams (1974Williams ( , 2003 relates this to the functional sequence of the clause (The Williams Cycle), stating that movement into a position that is lower on the functional sequence than the position moved from is banned (see also Abels 2007;Müller 2014). The sentences in (53) are ill-formed because they involve such illegitimate movement steps: in each case, the subject has moved through a position, embedded Spec,CP, that is higher on the hierarchy than the final landing site, matrix Spec,TP.…”